This study was a systematic review with a quantitative synthesis of the literature examining the overall effect size of practice facilitation and possible moderating factors. The primary outcome was the change in evidence-based practice behavior calculated as a standardized mean difference. In this systematic review, we searched 4 electronic databases and the reference lists of published literature reviews to find practice facilitation studies that identified evidence-based guideline implementation within primary care practices as the outcome. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies published from 1966 to December 2010 in English language only peer-reviewed journals. Reviews of each study were conducted and assessed for quality; data were abstracted, and standardized mean difference estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Publication bias, influence, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses were also conducted. Twenty-three studies contributed to the analysis for a total of 1,398 participating practices: 697 practice facilitation intervention and 701 control group practices. The degree of variability between studies was consistent with what would be expected to occur by chance alone (I2 = 20%). An overall effect size of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.43-0.68) favored practice facilitation (z = 8.76; P <.001), and publication bias was evident. Primary care practices are 2.76 (95% CI, 2.18-3.43) times more likely to adopt evidence-based guidelines through practice facilitation. Meta-regression analysis indicated that tailoring (P = .05), the intensity of the intervention (P = .03), and the number of intervention practices per facilitator (P = .004) modified evidence-based guideline adoption. Practice facilitation has a moderately robust effect on evidence-based guideline adoption within primary care. Implementation fidelity factors, such as tailoring, the number of practices per facilitator, and the intensity of the intervention, have important resource implications.

Background: Access to specialist advice remains a barrier for primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients. Virtual consultations have been used to expedite access. There are few studies demonstrating the utilization and impact of such services. We established a regional e-consultation service that was used across a wide range of specialty services and PCPs. Materials and Methods: We prospectively collected all e-consultations submitted from April 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. Utilization data collected included number of e-consultations submitted, specialist response, and time required for the specialist to complete the e-consultation. Perceived benefit to the PCPs and their patients and the impact on care delivery were determined from a close-out survey. Results: Fifty-nine PCPs submitted 406 e-consultations to 16 specialty services. The specialist provided an answer without requesting further information in 89% of cases, with >90% of cases taking <15 min for the specialist to complete. Seventy-five percent of cases were answered in <3 days. The service was perceived as highly beneficial to providers and patients in>90% of cases. In 43% of submitted cases a traditional referral was originally contemplated but was now avoided. Conclusions: We successfully implemented an e-consultation service across diverse PCPs and specialty services that was highly valued. Almost half of referrals submitted would have required a face-to-face consultation if the service had not been available. Thus e-consultation has tremendous potential for improving access to specialist advice in a much more timely manner than the traditional referral–consultation process.

Many health organizations are exploring the potential of electronic consultation (eConsult) services to address excessive wait times for specialist care. To understand the effectiveness, population impact and costs associated with implementation of eConsult services. We conducted a systematic review using a narrative synthesis approach. We searched Medline and Embase from inception to August 2014 (English/French). Included studies focused on communication between primary care providers and specialist physicians through an asynchronous, directed communication over a secure electronic medium. We assessed study quality with a modified version of the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. We synthesized the results using the Triple Aim framework. A total of 36 studies were included. Most were set in the USA and focused on single-specialty services (most commonly dermatology). Population health outcomes included patient populations, adoption/utilization and provider attitudes. Providers cited timely advice from specialists, good medical care, confirmation of diagnoses and educational benefits. No clinical outcomes were reported. Patient experience of care was generally positive, with quick specialist response times (4.6 hours to 3.9 days), avoided referrals (12–84%) and satisfaction ranging from 78% to 93%. System costs were reported in only seven studies using different outcome measures and settings, limiting comparability. Though eConsult systems are highly acceptable for patients and providers and deliver improved access to specialist advice, gaps remain regarding eConsult’s impact on population health and system costs. To achieve optimized health system performance, eConsult services must include specialty services as determined by community needs and further explore cost-effectiveness.

Background: Electronic consultation (eConsult) is an asynchronous electronic communication tool allowing primary care providers to obtain a specialist consultant's expert opinion in a timely manner, thereby offering a potential solution to excessive wait times for specialist care, which remain a serious concern in many countries. Introduction: Our 2014 review of eConsult services demonstrated feasibility and high acceptability among patients and providers. However, gaps remain in knowledge regarding eConsult's impact on system costs and patient outcomes. Materials and Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review in May 2017 of English and French literature on OVID Medline, EMBASE, ERIC, and CINAHL databases, examining all studies on eConsult services published since our previous review. The Quadruple Aim Framework was used to synthesize outcomes. Articles reporting on the impact of eConsult on access, patient safety and satisfaction, utilization rates, clinical workflow, and continuing medical education were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. Results: The initial search yielded 1,021 results, 50 of which were included on abstract and received a quality assessment and full text review. Of these, 43 were included in our final analysis. Results demonstrated the worldwide presence of eConsult services in North America and countries beyond, including Brazil, Australia, Spain, and The Netherlands. The breadth of specialty services offered has greatly expanded beyond dermatology and includes cardiology, nephrology, and hematology among others. Overall impact on access measures, acceptability, cost, and provider satisfaction remain positive. There is limited research on population health outcomes of morbidity and mortality. Conclusions: The availability of eConsult services has spread both geographically and in terms of specialty services offered. By allowing for a greater population to be served, access to care is being improved; however, long-term impact should continue to be assessed with a focus on patient safety, morbidity, mortality, and cost effectiveness metrics.

Objectives: We have improved access to specialist care and decreased wait times in our region through the development and implementation of the Champlain BASE (Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation) service. This secure, web-based tool allows primary care providers (PCPs) quick access to specialist advice for their patients and often helps to avoid the need for a face-to-face referral. Our successful implementation of eConsult in our region provides a unique opportunity to examine PCPs' satisfaction and overall perspective on using the service. Methods: Following the closure of each case, PCPs completed a short survey with multiple-choice and open-ended questions regarding the eConsult. All eConsults submitted between April 15, 2011, and December 31, 2013, were analyzed. We calculated satisfaction scores from the survey and conducted a constant-comparison thematic analysis on those cases where the PCP elected to leave a text response. Results: We analyzed 2,052 eConsults completed during the study period. In 91% and 93% of eConsults, PCPs reported a high value for their patients and themselves, respectively. In 554 eConsults, PCPs elected to leave a written response. Three major themes emerged: PCP appreciation of the eConsult service, perceived benefits for the quality of patient care, and attitudes towards using a new health technology. High satisfaction was expressed with quick response times, helpfulness of responses, and reassurance reported. Most PCPs felt eConsult had a positive impact on patient care by also providing reassurance to patients, reducing burden of time and travel, and offering educational opportunities to PCPs applicable to future cases. Conclusion: PCPs showed a high level of satisfaction with eConsult's quick turnaround time and quality of specialist advice. Our results illustrate the advantages of using asynchronous virtual platforms to increase access to specialty care from a PCP perspective.